# Any truth to this?



## tmmedic20 (Oct 30, 2011)

New to the dark side, so still don't know fact from fiction.

Please enlighten me.

DCPR ON CUBAN CIGAR SEIZURES: PROHIBITION ON CUBAN CIGARS


----------



## Perfecto Dave (Nov 24, 2009)

http://http://cubancigarseizure.blogspot.com/2012/10/cuban-tobacco-wiped-out-by-hurricane.html

I find this more disturbing.........:smoke2:


----------



## bpegler (Mar 30, 2006)

The only problem I have is that it takes so long to log into Puff from my federal prison cell...

Seriously, that is a bogus site.


----------



## Johnpaul (Aug 15, 2011)

Cubans are bad so buy Don Collins cigars, coffee, and rum from from Puerto Rico!*










*(this message brought to you by Don Collins)



LOL what a joke


----------



## tmmedic20 (Oct 30, 2011)

Johnpaul said:


> Cubans are bad so buy Don Collins cigars, coffee, and rum from from Puerto Rico!*
> 
> *(this message brought to you by Don Collins)
> 
> LOL what a joke


Pretty much what i got out of it, but you never know sometimes its the crazy ones who know the truth.


----------



## socalocmatt (Dec 22, 2010)

tmmedic20 said:


> Pretty much what i got out of it, but you never know sometimes its the crazy ones who know the truth.


So what you telling me is that the crazy guy on the corner yelling at nothing is really yelling at another crazy guy on a corner yelling at nothing in another city?

Ooooooo. Trippy!


----------



## cartey (Jul 28, 2011)

*there just are no more cubans.*


----------



## jphank (Apr 29, 2012)

"Now, and from now on, the only authentic thing about Cuban cigars is the ring or box they come in."

ound:


----------



## szyzk (Nov 27, 2010)

socalocmatt said:


> So what you telling me is that the crazy guy on the corner yelling at nothing is really yelling at another crazy guy on a corner yelling at nothing in another city?
> 
> Ooooooo. Trippy!


Is that cloud following me? It looks untrustworthy. WHY IS THAT CLOUD FOLLOWING ME?


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

Purchasing Cuban Cigars is illegal so yes it is true!
Can government see every single place you have been with your computer. Can they track every purchase on your credit card debit card pay pal etc.
You bet they can !
Anybody who believes different is living in denial. If they ever decide to prosecute they can. They just have better things to do. Does this mean any of us are guaranteed never to be fined or incarcerated of course not!
My answer to all that are intimidated by these realistic statements is always the same.
Don't break the law never do anything you don't want too.
That being said if they ever come and get me i sure hope i can smoke Cubans in prison LOL!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Oldmso54 (Jul 31, 2010)

TonyBrooklyn said:


> That being said if they ever come and get me i sure hope i can smoke Cubans in prison LOL!!!!!!!!!!


TONY B!! Good to see you posting! Hope Sandy didn't do too much damage to you but glad so see you back up and running!!


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

Oldmso54 said:


> TONY B!! Good to see you posting! Hope Sandy didn't do too much damage to you but glad so see you back up and running!!


Thanks bro we are all alive and i thank GOD for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As far as damage to materialistic possessions i could car less!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## StogieNinja (Jul 29, 2009)

Hahahahahahaha. The "Don Collins" was the cigar I sent to Kipp in the original WSBS Stink Bomb HAHA!

I believe the description Kipp gave was that it "smelled like pee."

:biglaugh:


----------



## IBEW (Jan 17, 2009)

TonyBrooklyn said:


> Purchasing Cuban Cigars is illegal so yes it is true!
> Can government see every single place you have been with your computer. Can they track every purchase on your credit card debit card pay pal etc.
> You bet they can !
> Anybody who believes different is living in denial. If they ever decide to prosecute they can. They just have better things to do. Does this mean any of us are guaranteed never to be fined or incarcerated of course not!
> ...


Well said, that's exactly how I look at it too! :beerchug:


----------



## avitti (Jun 4, 2011)

T.Brooklyn right on the money as usual---- if getting 'pinched' for cuban cigars was the worst thing that ever happened i could go to the pearly gates with a smile on my face and a free pass to the reserved seat section


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

Amen my brother Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ryan7311 (Jul 17, 2012)

I don't buy the whole "US and allies" part. Just about everywhere in Europe (our allies) seem to be very ok with the cigars. I walk around and find these things in so many countries and international airports. Heathrow airport in London actually had a HUGE collection to choose from. 

My question is can I use the sites to send stuff to my APO address or is that illegal too since its a US service? I can always send stuff to my house in Italy, but then I've got taxes to pay on it and I pay in euro instead of dollars.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

Of course its illegal you are shipping to the states!


----------



## nikesupremedunk (Jun 29, 2012)

At least 2 of my packages have been seized so I'm sure they have a record on me. Well it was nice knowing everyone here!


----------



## gasdocok (May 14, 2011)

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if it is considered a felony or a misdemeanor?

Not sure I'm going to change any of my behavior, just wondering.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

gasdocok said:


> Out of curiosity, does anyone know if it is considered a felony or a misdemeanor?
> 
> Not sure I'm going to change any of my behavior, just wondering.


Neither the cases last time out fined by OFAC were Civil cases!
Another words its all about collecting fines!
I just hired a lawyer and paid up total between fine and Lawyer $1,500.
No way to fight it they had the records in front of them!
I heard a few tried to fight it by the time it got dragged out in civil court The number was 10 times the amount i paid!


----------



## gasdocok (May 14, 2011)

well if it isn't even a criminal offense, just a civil one, what the hell are we worried about?


----------



## Ryan7311 (Jul 17, 2012)

TonyBrooklyn said:


> Of course its illegal you are shipping to the states!


No. It goes to Italy. Unless you mean it goes through the states first. That I am not sure about.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

Ryan7311 said:


> No. It goes to Italy. Unless you mean it goes through the states first. That I am not sure about.


Introducing Cuban cigars to America even through a third country is still illegal.


----------



## bpegler (Mar 30, 2006)

gasdocok said:


> well if it isn't even a criminal offense, just a civil one, what the hell are we worried about?


There hasn't been an OFAC case in recent years. However, there have been cases of "trading with the enemy" involving huge shipments of cigars that were federal criminal cases.

Literally boatloads of Cuban Cigars...


----------



## border bandit (Feb 26, 2012)

I have seen Customs inspectors at the ports of entries down here seize the boxes, ask the guy trying to import the sticks if he wants to fight the case, pay a fine or forfeit the sticks. If he chooses forfeiting, the sticks are broke in half and thrown in the trash. Customs inspectors have told me that there's entirely too much paperwork involved in prosecuting some guy trying to import CC just for a civil penalty. He said the ones they look for are the ones that try to import boxes, a lot of boxes, to make it a slam dunk case. 

But there are incidents like tonybrooklyn where he had to pay that hefty fine. There's some guy, somewhere in the gov't, that loves his job entirely too much and goes after guys like that. Not much we can do. We know the fine print when we click the process order button.

Not saying that every inspector is the same as I have had a few boxes never make it to me, but if I see some gov't vehicle rolling up to my house I'm gonna lite up a CC and make them kick the door in.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

Lawyer Allegedly Smuggles Cigars - Business Insider

The sad part his own wife ratted him out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES v. CONNORS

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard S. CONNORS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-3478.

Argued Oct. 27, 2005. -- March 21, 2006
Before EASTERBROOK, EVANS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Angela Crawford (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.Peter N. Moore (argued), Latham & Watkins, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Divorce rates are disturbingly high.   Sometimes, marital splits get nasty when an ex-spouse decides to dish out a little dose of discomfort to his or her former partner.   And as far as dishing out discomfort is concerned, the havoc visited on Chicago lawyer Richard Connors by his ex-wife would win a gold medal for creativity.   With substantial assistance from his ex, Connors stands convicted in federal court of (among other things) violating a law we seldom encounter, the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), 50 U.S.C.App. §§ 5(b)(1) and 16.   Today, we resolve Connors's appeal from that conviction.

After an 11-day jury trial, Connors was found guilty of smuggling Cuban cigars into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545;  one count of conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371;  one count of making a false statement on a passport application, 18 U.S.C. § 1542;  and violating the TWEA.1 He was sentenced to a 37-month prison term.

At the trial, the government's star witness was Special Agent John Sheridan of the U.S. Customs Service.   Sheridan spent more than 3 years investigating Connors's activities.   Only after the trial did Connors learn that Agent Sheridan had an inside source of information-Connors's ex-wife, Nicole Chakalis.   Connors now argues that Chakalis's involvement in the investigation violated the Fourth Amendment and that the prosecution's failure to disclose the details of her activities before trial deprived him of due process under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

Sheridan began his investigation in early 1996 after Chakalis contacted him about one of her ex-husband's upcoming trips to Cuba. (Her motives are not entirely clear-she says she was concerned because Connors was planning on taking their son with him and getting him in trouble, but there also appears to have been an element of spite involved.)   Thanks to the information Chakalis provided, Connors was stopped at the Canadian border on his way back to the United States, and a trunkload of Cuban cigars (46 boxes in 4 suitcases-evidence suggests that they could be sold for something in the area of $350 per box) was seized along with Connors's passport (for which he soon obtained a replacement-more on that later).   Over the next 3 years, Chakalis continued to provide Sheridan with information about Connors's travels, dealings, and associates-information she was able to obtain by renewing her relationship with Connors and spending weekends at his house.

Chakalis's information, and other evidence gathered in the investigation, disclosed that Connors ran a fairly lucrative Cuban cigar smuggling operation.   Traveling from places like Toronto and Cancun, he made some 31 trips to Cuba between 1996 and 1999.   And Cuban cigars have a definite cachet: 2  Despite some controversy over the degree to which Cuba (where tobacco was first encountered by European explorers) has been able to maintain the quality of its cigars under communist rule, it is undisputed that the leaves grown in the fertile soil of the Vuelta Abajo, in the western province of Pinar del Río, cultivated and prepared according to centuries-old traditions, produce an incomparably smooth, pungent, and full-bodied smoke.   See James Suckling, "On the Road to Tobacco Country:  A journey into the Vuelta Abajo, land of the world's best cigar leaves," Cigar Aficionado magazine, May/June 2001.

Connors was unaware of his ex-wife's cooperation until after the trial when, apparently remorseful, she told him what she had done.   At a post-trial hearing, she testified that Sheridan not only asked her to cozy up to Connors but also suggested that she obtain incriminating documents from his house and place them in the trash for Sheridan to retrieve.   Connors argues that this amounted to an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment, with Chakalis, in effect, acting as Sheridan's agent.   See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971);  United States v. Shahid, 117 F.3d 322, 325 (7th Cir.1997).   But Sheridan, although acknowledging that he recovered a number of pieces of evidence from Connors's garbage, denied urging Chakalis to put the pieces there for him to find.

The district court found no Fourth-Amendment violation.   For one thing, the court was uncertain that the activities Chakalis described even amounted to an illegal search, given that Connors himself welcomed her into his home.   More important, the court didn't believe that things unfolded the way Chakalis described.   The court found particularly suspicious the documentation Chakalis produced to corroborate her story-a printout of a computerized journal recounting her dealings with Sheridan, including his suggestion that she convey documents to him through the trash.   Chakalis claimed that the print-out reflected the journal in its original form without any later editing, but the court found numerous entries that referred to events after the dates on which they were supposedly written.   Also, when testifying about the journal at the hearing, Chakalis could not recall basic facts about it, such as the name of the computer file in which it was kept.   Finding the journal an unreliable source of corroboration, the court credited Agent Sheridan's testimony that he was neither involved in nor aware of any illegal search that Chakalis may have undertaken.

 Connors renews his argument that Chakalis's participation in Sheridan's investigation violated the Fourth Amendment and that all of the evidence recovered as a result of her participation should have been suppressed.   The fact that Chakalis was spying on Connors and exploiting his misplaced trust in her does not by itself amount to a constitutional violation, even if it was at the behest of the government.   See Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 302, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966). When a friend is false, blame the friend, not the government.   Rummaging through Connors's private files for incriminating documents, however, may be another matter, see id. at 301, 87 S.Ct. 408, but only if Sheridan directed or acquiesced in it, see Shahid, 117 F.3d at 325.   The district court concluded that Sheridan did not know of any illegal rummaging and that Chakalis's contrary testimony was not credible;  the question for us is whether that was a reasonable conclusion.   Connors argues that it wasn't.   He suggests that Sheridan must have realized Connors was too cautious to throw away incriminating documents and therefore must have known the items he found in the trash were put there by Chakalis.   Maybe Sheridan could have drawn that inference, but criminal investigators are not required to assume that their targets always act prudently.   The only evidence that Sheridan knew of Connors's cautiousness comes from Chakalis's journal, in which she reports telling Sheridan that Connors "never throws anything out."   But the district court found, as we said, the contents of that journal to be unreliable, and Connors has given us no reason to reject that finding.

 Connors also argues that the government violated his right to due process by withholding any inkling about Chakalis's involvement in the investigation.   In general, however, the government is not required to reveal the identity of nontestifying confidential informants unless the information is relevant and helpful to the defense.   See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59-62, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957);  United States v. Banks, 405 F.3d 559, 564 (7th Cir.2005).   Connors doesn't argue that knowing the informant's identity would have helped his defense, but rather that there was other material in Sheridan's confidential informant file that would have allowed him to impeach Sheridan's trial testimony.   Specifically, the file shows that Chakalis at one point told Sheridan that Connors was able to devote himself to his cigar-related activities because of a large settlement he had won several years earlier in a personal-injury lawsuit, thus freeing him from the need to work for a living.   But at trial, Sheridan denied knowing that Connors had any source of income other than cigar importing.   According to Connors, if he had been given access to Sheridan's C.I. file he would have been able to show that this was a lie.   But in order to present a concern under Brady, the withheld information must be material to the issue at trial.   See Ienco v. Angarone, 429 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir.2005).   Connors argues that Sheridan's testimony may have led the jury to believe that he had no legitimate income and thus needed cash from his illegal cigar importing to get by.   But Sheridan didn't testify that there was no settlement, only that he didn't know about it.   Sheridan's knowledge of the settlement has no bearing on Connors's guilt or innocence, and Connors was not inhibited from presenting to the jury the fact of the settlement itself.   The withholding of the confidential informant file did not prejudice the trial's outcome.

 While the arguments Connors advanced so far have merit, his remaining claims are borderline frivolous.   He says the evidence was insufficient to convict him of smuggling "Cuban" cigars because the government didn't perform an analysis to prove that the cigars seized from him actually came from Cuba. He argues that it is not enough that the cigars themselves were marked as having been made in Cuba. He cites Kennedy v. United States, 44 F.2d 131, 133 (9th Cir.1930), for the proposition that "the court may not take judicial notice of the fact that the labels [on allegedly contraband merchandise] are what they purport to be."   But there was no judicial notice here-the evidence was submitted to a jury (the cigars themselves, along with the evidence of Connors's frequent trips to Cuba), and the jury permissibly concluded that one plus one equals two and the cigars must have come from Cuba.

 Connors similarly challenges his conviction for making a false statement on a passport application.   After customs officials took his passport from him at the Canadian border, Connors applied for a replacement.   On the application, under the heading "Lost/Stolen Passport Information," Connors wrote:  "My passport is missing since 4-7-96 while I was visiting friends in Canada and returning to the United States."   He now argues that this was literally true-that "missing" means nothing more than "no longer possessed"-and therefore his statement cannot support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1542.   Make this claim to a nonlawyer and you're liable to get a "you can't be serious" response.   The jury obviously got it right:  Connors's passport was retained by U.S. government authorities;  it was not "missing" in any common sense understanding of the word.

 Finally, Connors raises an argument based on United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), pointing out that the district court enhanced his sentence based on several factual findings of its own making.   Normally, such a situation calls for a limited remand under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005), with the possibility of eventual resentencing.   But Connors goes further, arguing that resentencing under the remedial holding of Booker would violate the Constitution's ex post facto clause and that we should therefore simply reduce his sentence to the maximum available under the sentencing guidelines in the absence of the prohibited enhancements, which in his case is 6 months.   We rejected a similar argument in United States v. Jamison, 416 F.3d 538, 539 (7th Cir.2005), and we see no reason why we should reconsider that argument here.   Therefore, with respect to Connors's sentence we order a Limited Remand in accordance with Paladino, retaining jurisdiction over the case.   In all other respects the judgment of the district court is Affirmed.


----------



## border bandit (Feb 26, 2012)




----------



## HydroRaven (Oct 10, 2010)

Listen guys, as American citizens, it's pretty straightforward: you are not allowed to buy or consume Cuban cigars. There are no ways around this. Even if you travel to another country and smoke a Cuban, you are technically "trading with the enemy" as Bob put it. Even if they go through your house in North Korea first, if you are an American citizen and buy/consume Cuban products, you are breaking the laws set by your government.

Now, about that Don Collins article, I have to say they did get a chuckle out of me when they said Interpol logs your "illegal" Cuban purchases.


----------



## tpharkman (Feb 20, 2010)

On average the average U.S. citizen commits a couple of felonies each day we aren't even aware of committing. Seriously, if they want to throw your ass in jail and toss the key they don't need to catch you importing a freaking box of cigars. So my advice, for those of you that have the funds, keep hitting that process order button as many times as you can while you still have the ability to acquire these fine cigars.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

tpharkman said:


> On average the average U.S. citizen commits a couple of felonies each day we aren't even aware of committing. Seriously, if they want to throw your ass in jail and toss the key they don't need to catch you importing a freaking box of cigars. So my advice, for those of you that have the funds, keep hitting that process order button as many times as you can while you still have the ability to acquire these fine cigars.


Amen my brother Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mata777 (Jul 11, 2011)

tpharkman said:


> On average the average U.S. citizen commits a couple of felonies each day we aren't even aware of committing. Seriously, if they want to throw your ass in jail and toss the key they don't need to catch you importing a freaking box of cigars. So my advice, for those of you that have the funds, keep hitting that process order button as many times as you can while you still have the ability to acquire these fine cigars.


Very true. I love how some people cite the legality of acquiring and smoking habanos as their excuse for not smoking the greatest cigars on earth because they don't break the law. The way I see it you only live once. Smoke what makes you happy.


----------



## Damselnotindistress (Aug 7, 2011)

There's an old African saying:

"If men swear to do you harm, spend your nights sleeping;
If WOMEN swear to do you harm, spend your nights AWAKE!!!"


----------



## eddyeddy (Jul 12, 2012)

I like this part.

_"...it is undisputed that the leaves grown in the fertile soil of the Vuelta Abajo, in the western province of Pinar del Río, cultivated and prepared according to centuries-old traditions, produce an incomparably smooth, pungent, and full-bodied smoke..."_


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

Damselnotindistress said:


> There's an old African saying:
> 
> "If men swear to do you harm, spend your nights sleeping;
> If WOMEN swear to do you harm, spend your nights AWAKE!!!"


Well i am glad to finally hear one of you admit it LOL!


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

Damselnotindistress said:


> There's an old African saying:
> 
> "If men swear to do you harm, spend your nights sleeping;
> If WOMEN swear to do you harm, spend your nights AWAKE!!!"


LOL. Got it in one Janet!


----------



## Ryan7311 (Jul 17, 2012)

Damselnotindistress said:


> There's an old African saying:
> 
> "If men swear to do you harm, spend your nights sleeping;
> If WOMEN swear to do you harm, spend your nights AWAKE!!!"


"If I want to kill you, I'm going to poison your food."

- My Wife


----------



## capttrips (Jun 25, 2012)

I think we all know or should know what the risks and rewards are? If you don't, then shame on you. I put this stupid law in the same boat with marijuana. Pardon the pun.


----------



## HWiebe (Jul 13, 2010)

Being Canadian I really don't have a horse in this race but honestly the Cuban trade embargo always seemed ridiculous once the crisis was over. If they seriously begin enforcing the "illegal import" of Habanos for personal consumption, it must mean they've solved all the other crimes.


----------



## capttrips (Jun 25, 2012)

Ryan7311 said:


> "If I want to kill you, I'm going to poison your food."
> 
> - My Wife


My Wife:

You're not going to die honey, you're just going to nasty away.

I sleep with one eye open listening for rattling in the knife drawer.


----------



## Damselnotindistress (Aug 7, 2011)

TonyBrooklyn said:


> Well i am glad to finally hear one of you admit it LOL!


:lol: Hey! I'm happy to be honest!!


----------

